PLATO(427-347 BCE)
To understand political thought in the West, it is best to begin with the Greek political thinkers. To understand Greek political thinkers, let’s try to understand the context in which Greek thinkers produced their works.
GREEK SOCIETY AND WORLDVIEW
Political life in the ancient Greece revolved around the city-states. City-states were called polis, from which comes the term political which meant all those activities that were associated with the city-state. Prominent city-states included Athens (inclined towards democracy) and Sparta (inclined towards authoritarian rule).
Greek society was hierarchical and patriarchal. They excluded women, children, and slaves from citizenship.
Greek people were ethnocentric, meaning they believed in racial inequality. Non-Greeks were seen as barbarians.
Economic life in ancient Greece was agrarian. The economic system was based on the slave mode of production.
The intellectual culture of their society encouraged logic and inquiry. They questioned and did not accept things as given.
All the above factors made it possible for Greece to produce the greatest political thinkers in human history and it ultimately became the birthplace of western civilisation.
Now, let’s begin with the first giant of western political thought, Plato.
PLATO: Life and context
Plato was born in 428/427 BC in an aristocratic family. His early adulthood coincided with the period of political turmoil — defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) and the establishment of the rule of a Council of Thirty Oligarchs by overthrowing the democratic government.
Plato’s uncle Critias was the most prominent member of the Council. He had high hopes from this Council. However, tyranny continued and his hopes were destroyed.
In 403 BC, democratic government was reinstated in Athens through a counter-revolution led by Thrasybulus. It was under this democratic regime that Socrates was sentenced to death penalty, condemned with the charge of ‘corrupting young men’. The death of Socrates was the defining moment in Plato’s life.
Socrates was Plato’s friend and teacher until the former’s death. The celebration of his revered teacher’s life and teachings became Plato’s mission.
Plato had seen the atrocious working of oligarchy and the condemnation of Socrates, a personification of wisdom, under democracy. The conclusion he drew was that all existing States (political systems) are bad.
Introducing Plato as a Political Thinker
Plato was an idealist — concerned with what ought to be rather than what is. He was the founder of philosophical idealism. He had the conviction that there is a universal idea in the world of eternal reality beyond the world of the senses.
Plato was occupied with the questions of human perfection and excellence. He was constantly asking How to live best? What is the best way of life? What is the best organisation of human society? This will find manifestation in his theory of the rule of philosopher king and others.
Plato was radical, revolutionary, and much ahead of his time. In an age when women were not considered even as a complete person, Plato believed in equality of sexes.
Plato laid the foundations of Greek political theory on which the Western political tradition rests. It is often said that the entire western political thought is a footnote to Plato and Aristotle.
Plato’s works are written in the form of dialogues — a method of great importance in clarifying questions and establishing truth.
Socrates’ Influence on Plato
Plato was the disciple of Socrates. Socrates’ teachings and life had a huge influence on Plato and his ideas.
Socrates was continuously occupied with the idea of getting competent men into positions of power. This would shape the major ideas of Plato such as the theory of the Rule of Philosopher King. Socrates’ death under a democratic regime would make Plato eternally disdain democracy as a form of government.
Socratic method of inquiry is called dialectics which is about seeking knowledge by questioning. The works of Plato follows the same method.
The major works of Plato include The Republic, The Statesman, and The Laws.
What we will discuss in Plato include:
- Theory of Ideas or Forms
- Theory of Justice
- Theory of the Rule of Philosopher King
- Theory of Education
- Theory of Communism
THEORY OF IDEAS OR FORMS
Plato’s philosophy is founded on the distinction between reality and appearance. According to Plato, there are two worlds — the world of ideas and the world of senses. The former is the reality and the latter is mere appearance.
Let’s take an example of the idea of a bed as shown below.
Look at the above bed carefully and think what Plato says- there are many beds but there is only one idea or form of a bed. Various particular beds we see are only appearance and not real— they are the copies of the idea of bed. What is real is the idea of the bed. Philosophers will be interested only in the one ideal bed, not in the many beds found in the world of sense-perceptions.
Plato offers another logical explanation in this regard. When we use the word cat to refer to an animal, it is different from each particular cat. If the word cat means anything, it means something which is not this or that cat, but some kind of universal cattiness (that of being a cat). This is not born when a particular cat is born, and does not die when it dies. In fact, it has no position in space and time- it is eternal.
In short, what we see are not real, they are copies of the ideal or form. A red rose you see in a garden is actually a copy of the idea or form of the red rose. The real red rose is somewhere else which can be known to those who seek true knowledge.
Why would Plato create this world of ideas in his theory is really interesting. Let’s find out the necessity of the world of ideas in Plato’s theory.
By presenting his Theory of Ideas, Plato sought to explain the difference between clear intellectual vision and the confused vision of sense-perception. He would explain this by an analogy from the sense of sight. Sight differs from other senses since it requires not only the eye and the object, but also light. We see clearly objects on which the sun shines. In twilight, we see confusedly, and in darkness, not at all. Plato says that the world of ideas is what we see when the object is illuminated by the sun, while the world of passing-things is a confused twilight world.
According to Plato, the true nature of reality cannot be comprehended by the ordinary senses but by the use of our mind. He illustrated this with the metaphor of the Sun. Like we can clearly see objects on which the Sun shines, we can see reality when we have knowledge.
Plato differentiated between knowledge and opinion. Opinion is of the world presented to the senses, whereas knowledge is of a super-sensible eternal world. For instance, opinion is concerned with particular beautiful things and is not real, but knowledge is concerned with beauty in itself and is the only reality. Knowledge enables us to see reality which the opinions cannot. In Plato’s understanding, a person who loves only beautiful things is dreaming, whereas the person who knows absolute beauty is wide awake.
Plato explores the tension between the imagined reality that we think is real versus the reality that is the truth through the allegory of the cave.
Suppose the situation of prisoners in a cave. These people are only able to look in one direction because they are bound, and they have a fire behind them and a wall in front. Between them and the wall, there is nothing. All that they see are shadows of themselves, and of objects behind them, cast on the wall by the light of the fire. Inevitably, they regard these shadows as real and do not know the real objects as they are actually. At last, some man succeeds in escaping from the cave to the light of the sun. For the first time, he sees real things, and becomes aware that he had hitherto been deceived by shadows. If he is the sort of philosopher who is fit to become a guardian, he would go back into the cave and tell others the truth that what they have been thinking so far as real things are just shadows. He will show them the way up. But, others inside the cave would think that he is stupid and would not listen to him.
The cave represents the people who have been blinded by things they see. They pursue the shadows as the real life goals. The shadows represent the things we perceive to be the truth — what we hear, see, and have been taught as the truth. The escape signifies seeing and thinking differently from the crowd — those who seek the truth outside of what majority perceive to be the truth; questioning assumptions. The return marks the urge to help the fellow people to come out of illusion and falsehood, and the danger of resistance, criticism, and threat to such efforts.
Plato argued that man cannot live without knowledge, i.e., knowledge of how to lead a good life. The one who knows the good will never choose anything else. Being good or virtue is knowledge.
All of us aim for what is good. If we do not know what is good, we cannot do what is good — we will aim for the mistaken target. If we know what is good, we will do what is good — we will correctly aim for what is good. Then, who knows what is the good? According to Plato, the one who has knowledge knows what is the good. In the words of Socrates, no man sins willingly and knowledge can make all persons perfectly virtuous.
THEORY OF JUSTICE
The central question of the Republic was the meaning of justice or right conduct or morality. The subtitle of the book itself is ‘on the just man’ or ‘concerning justice’. In the book, Plato critically examines the existing conceptions of justice and gives his own concept of justice.
Contemporary Theories of Justice and Plato’s Arguments
Basically there are three prima facie theories of justice by Cephalus, Thrasymachus, and Glaucon. Plato refutes these theories by giving his own arguments. Plato, in his arguments, speaks through Socrates.
Cephalus’ Theory of Justice (Traditionalism): Cephalus and his successor, Polemarchus’ view on justice represents the traditional ideas of morality in ancient Greece. Cephalus defines justice as “telling the truth, and paying one’s debts”.
However, Socrates points out that, in some cases, it might be harmful to speak the truth or return one’s belongings. It may not be just to return weapons to a mad person, or to tell the truth when it is better to conceal it. It should be understood that justice has to be beneficial, or at least, not harmful. Thus, it is suggested that Cephalus’ concept of justice will not be acceptable.
To this, Polemarchus, Cephalus’ son, defines justice in a slightly altered form. By justice, Polemarchus means “giving each man his due” or “what was fitting”. Justice is here assumed as an art — an art which gives “good to friends and evil to enemies”.
Socrates dismisses this view and argues that helping friends may also involve ignoble acts like stealing and telling a lie. Secondly, the idea of being good to friends and bad to enemies is difficult to apply. What we think as a friend might be a friend in seeming only, but an enemy in reality. Thirdly, Socrates argues that justice is a quality of the soul and a habit of the mind. Any person who has once attained it can act only in one way, which can never be the way of injuring others. A just person should not harm anyone, whether friend or enemy.
Thrasymachus’ Theory of Justice (Radicalism): Thrasymachus is treated as the spokesman of the Radical Sophists. He defines justice as “the interests of the stronger party or the ruler”. In other words, might is right. Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interests. Democratic states have democratic laws, tyrannical states tyrannical laws, and so on. Rules are always defined by the stronger party and those who deviate from these rulers are punished as lawbreakers or ‘wrongdoers’.
To this, Socrates responds that rulers might make mistakes by not being able to identify their interests and frame laws contrary to their advantage.
At this point, Clitophon suggests to define justice as “whatever the strong believe to be in their interest”. But, Thrasymachus rejects this idea and replies that rulers are always right. He defines justice as another’s good. He goes further to say that injustice is better than justice, the unjust man is a wiser man than the just.
Socrates, however, argues that justice is not the advantage of the stronger, because the rulers’ duty is to serve the interests of the people. Ruling is an art and a ruler’s only aim is the well-being of the citizens.
Insisting on his doctrine of specific functions, he further points out that the virtue or excellence of anything consists in its discharge of its appointed function. Therefore, a ruler, wise, good and knowledgeable, cannot be selfish and will serve for the welfare of the people.
Thrasymachus’ definition that justice is the interest of the stronger could not be convincingly refuted by Socrates and the fact remains that it is the strongest who sets the standards in society.
Glaucon’s Theory of Justice (Pragmatism): Converse to what Thrasymachus has said about justice, Glaucon defines justice as “the interests of the weak”. He contends that justice is an artificial thing, the product of convention.
Glaucon, along with Adeimantus, argues that individuals are not willingly just, but out of necessity, in which case injustice is better than justice. They consider justice to be a contract between the strong and the weak. Justice is a mean or a compromise between, the best of all, which is to do injustice and not to be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation. Justice is the fears of the weak rather than the appetites of the strong.
To this, Socrates points out that justice has to be universal and should be at the interest of all and not for few. When insisted upon, he says that justice exists both in the State and in the individual, but it exists on a larger scale and in a more visible fashion in the State. He gives the example that anything written in big and bold, in contrast to written in small size, would receive more attention. Thus, justice has to be understood in the State first before it is to the individual.
Plato’s Idea of Justice
The contemporary theories of justice have a common element: these theories have treated justice as if it is something external, an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention. What Plato argues is that justice is a virtue, a human excellence. Justice is internal and it is a human grace. For him, “justice means being the best one can be,” or “reaching one’s highest human potential,” so that the State becomes virtuous; and with individuals fulfilling their obligations to the political community and thereby serving common interest.
Justice in the State and Individual
According to Plato, states and cities arose out of two reasons— mutual need and the differences in aptitudes of individuals. He believes that an individual is an organic entity, an important part of the establishment.
Justice in the State
Since everything is easier to see in the large than in the small, it will be better to inquire what makes a just State than what makes a just individual. Thus, we should first identify justice in the polis or state.
Plato’s imaginary ideal state is called Kallipolis (‘Beautiful City). Such a state would originate in the fact that human beings need to cooperate in order to meet their material needs. But the meeting of basic needs will inevitably produce more sophisticated needs, and so more complex structures will have to be devised to supply them.
Plato divides the functions of a society into three— ruling, defence and production, and there should not be any interference between them. Accordingly, he suggests that the state will contain three classes of people or three occupational groups, between whom the state’s virtues will be distributed. These are Guardians, Auxiliaries and Producers. The guardians will embody the state’s wisdom; the auxiliary or military class will embody its courage; the producers will embody temperance or self-restraint.
Justice, according to Plato, will not be a separate virtue in addition to wisdom, courage and self-restraint. It will be the relationship that holds when the Auxiliaries and Producers remain within the limits prescribed for them by the Guardians. Justice, in other words, will obtain when the Guardians, Auxiliaries and Producers function together in such a way as to secure the good of the whole community. Justice is a matter of everyone doing the job for which they are best suited for and not interfering with anyone else. Justice is “one class, one duty; one man, one work.”
For Plato, justice is the bond which holds a society together, a harmonious union of individuals each of whom has found his life-work in accordance with his natural fitness and his training.
Justice in the Individual
According to Plato, the individual soul has three parts or functions: reason, appetite and spirit or emotion. Neither appetite nor spirit can function properly without the guidance of reason. A life of undirected appetite or of random and uncontrolled emotion would be a futile and frustrating one. Justice is present in the soul when appetite and spirit are guided by reason in such a way as to secure the good of the whole.
Thus, for Plato, every individual is assigned a place in society according to one’s natural aptitudes and skills. A just individual is one who does his job and does not interfere in another’s share. It is the having and doing of one’s own and what belongs to oneself.
For example, an artisan will be just if he does the work of production and does not try to involve himself in political decision-making.
Plato gives three arguments in favour of what he calls a just life:
- a just individual limits his desires, for non-satisfaction of desires lead to unhappiness.
- only a philosopher can differentiate between the pleasures derived from the pursuit of reason, and those obtained from appetite and sensuality.
- pleasures derived from the intellect are more genuine and comforting than those derived from senses.
Why is it that most people are not just?
This is because most people lack knowledge. They do not know the nature of such things as justice, right, goodness and so forth. They live in a world in which there is no certain knowledge, but only opinion or belief. And, opinions or beliefs can so easily be changed, especially when they are influenced by demagogues or persuasive orators. This is a particular danger in democracies, because the conditions of life that democracies furnish tend to produce weak-willed and indecisive people. The only truly just men, Plato thinks, are those who have knowledge rather than opinion: those who are ‘wisdom lovers’, not the ‘lovers of sights and sounds’. Ideally, therefore, it is philosophers who should have responsibility for governing the state.
THEORY OF THE RULE OF PHILOSOPHER KING
Plato writes in The Republic that until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, cities will never have rest from their evils.
Plato wanted to arrest the decline of Athens and he linked the decline of the State with the rule of ignorance. He had the conviction that the most knowledgeable person can provide the best governance. However, since it was scarcely possible for philosophers to become rulers, he suggested rulers to become philosophers. Plato gave the following reasons and arguments on why rulers must also be philosophers:
Theory of Three Souls and Three Classes
According to this theory, every soul has either of the three qualities- reason, spirit, and appetite. Individuals in whom the rational element is predominant constitute the ruling class or the guardian class. The remaining constitutes the warriors and the workers respectively.
| Virtue | Soul | Class |
| Wisdom | Rational | Rulers |
| Courage | Spirited | Soldiers |
| Temperance | Appetite | Producers/Artisans |
Plato has a strong bias in the superiority of the rational mind. He insists that philosophers are best suited to rule because reason is dominant in their soul. An arch-rationalist himself, Plato contends that reason ruled the world, not God.
Myth of Metals
To sustain his argument, Plato insists that there must be one “noble or royal lie”. The most important part of it is the dogma or myth that God has created man of three kinds — the best made of gold, and the remaining two of silver and bronze respectively. Those made of gold are best fit to be rulers, and those made of silver and bronze to be soldiers and workers respectively.
Plato’s Idea of Justice
In his conception of justice, Plato points out that the city is just when the rulers, the soldiers and the producers each do their appointed task without interfering with that of other classes.
Plato justifies his arguments saying that the ruling class has the virtue of wisdom and their soul made of gold is best suited to rule and will provide the most desirable governance.
The Dictum That Virtue is Knowledge
Plato believes in the Socratic dictum that Virtue is Knowledge. This phrase would mean that the highest virtue is identifiable with the highest knowledge i.e., philosophy. The class representing Reason showed the highest capacity for virtue. Because of their superiority in virtue, Plato further insists, the philosophers are best entitled to rule.
Knowledge versus Opinion
According to Plato, there are two worlds- the world of Ideas and the world of Senses. The former is the world of Being, Beauty or Forms, and the latter the world of Becoming, Beautiful or Opinion. A person who understands Beauty itself has knowledge; a person who merely sees beautiful things has mere beliefs or opinions.
For Plato, knowledge is something eternal, everlasting and permanent. On the other hand, opinions are subjective, not real and simply based on appearances. There is incompetence in opinion.
Plato argues that only the philosophers have a passion for knowledge, are curious and eager to learn. They can see the “Form” of justice and therefore they can only ensure that justice in the city state matches that Form as much similar as possible.
It is foolish to limit an expert practitioner of medicine with a book of medicine. Law represents an average wisdom whereas philosopher king represents the ultimate knowledge. There are number of occasions where law may be rigid or silent. Thus, we cannot restrict the philosopher king with public opinion.
The Idea of Good
In the world of Ideas, the Idea of Good occupies the topmost place. It is like the sun that illuminates all other ideas. Man thrives for betterment or what is good. Everyone wants to lead a good life and all knowledge seeks for the good life of mankind. However, only the philosopher has the knowledge of the Idea of Good. Whoever knows what is good does what is right. Plato argues that a philosopher ruler who has the knowledge of the Idea of Good can best make the city-states similar to the Ideal State.
To sum up, according to Plato, a philosopher has a rational mind, he has wisdom as virtue, he has knowledge and he only knows the Idea of Good and all these qualities make him to be the best ruler of the city-state. However, since there is little possibility of philosophers becoming rulers, Plato argues, a ruler must also be a philosopher. This will enable the ruler to govern his State in an ideal way.
Plato believes that a ruler must undergo an extensive study of philosophy. A philosopher searches for Absolute Beauty beyond all beautiful things, Absolute Good beyond all good things. He knows what is Beauty, Temperance, and Justice and uses this knowledge to mould the character of those over whom he rules.
When a philosopher king rules, the laws would be the dictates of reason and his discretion would be better than inflexible laws. His reason and wisdom are the motive and the regulative forces in the Ideal State.
Bertrand Russell points out four basic points regarding the Platonic insistence of rulers also being philosopher:
- Goodness and Reality being timeless, the best state will be the one which more nearly copies the heavenly model (the Ideal State), by having minimum of change and maximum of static perfection, and its rulers should be those who best understand the eternal Good.
- If a man is to be a good statesman, he must know the Good. This he can only do by a combination of intellectual and moral discipline. If those who have not gone through this discipline are allowed to rule, they will inevitably corrupt.
- The third and fourth points tell the necessity of extensive education of rulers in mathematics, and the importance of leisure to wisdom respectively.
- Much education is needed to make good ruler on Plato’s principles. On the other hand, leisure is essential to wisdom. Leisure will not be found among those who have to work for their living, but only among those who have independent means or who are relieved by the State from anxieties as to their subsistence.
Critical Evaluation of the Rule of Philosopher King
First of all, a philosopher becoming a ruler is unattainable. Giving the task of ruling to the philosopher who does not have the knowledge of statecraft would be very inadequate. Simply having the knowledge of abstract sciences like mathematics or dialectics is no preparation for a man of action which a philosopher ruler has to be.
Claude Levi-Strauss argues that the ideal state was unrealistic and unrealisable, for the philosopher was not a natural ruler and governing was thrust upon him in the larger interest of the community.
Besides, Plato’s conception of the rule of philosophy or dubbed as ideocracy is criticised as against the spirit of democracy, equality, liberty and free citizenship.
Plato rejected popular participation for the fear that ordinary people cannot comprehend the Absolute Truth and the Idea of Good. In this regard, Karl Popper famously called Plato as one of the enemies of open society. Popper says that Plato is anti-democratic, anti-individual and anti to social change. As a matter of noteworthy, Popper argues that it is unimportant who governs. The key issue is to minimise misrule and prevent misuse and abuse of power. Popper further argues if the claims of absolute truth are falsified.
Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, also argued that it would be better for a ruler to be worldly wise than to be wise in the world of ideas. For Aristotle, rule of philosopher king is ideal but unachievable. Its practical form will be tyranny. We also know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Aristotle established the supremacy of the rule of law. Law is a time-tested institution. It represents the collective wisdom of ages.
What a ruler needs to know is not what is good in abstract but what is good for different individuals and different conditions of society. A ruler becoming a philosopher having superiority of the rational mind, the knowledge of the Idea of Good, ability to know Absolute Truth and ruling an ideal state with absolute perfection are all very tempting yet they remain too idealistic to realise.
Plato’s Republic, unlike modern utopias, was perhaps intended to be actually founded. Many of its provisions, including some that seemed quite impracticable, were actually realised at Sparta. The rule of philosophers had also been attempted by Pythagoras. Indeed, the idea of a ruler also being a philosopher and a philosopher king ruling a State providing the best possible governance is very tempting.
However, Plato’s idea that a ruler also being a philosopher proved to be impractical when his own attempt to make Dionysius a philosopher king failed.
Plato himself realised the impracticability of the rule of philosophy. He later offered his second-best state in the Laws, making a major theoretical shift. In Laws, his conception of the rule of philosophy is replaced by the rule of sovereign law. With Plato’s own admission, we can conclude that the conception of the rule of philosophy is too idealistic to realise and this makes Plato an idealist thinker.
PLATO’S THEORY OF EDUCATION
“Plato’s Republic is the finest treatise ever written on education,” said Rousseau.
“Plato’s scheme of education is natural corollary of his theory of justice.” Plato’s Ideal State, its sustenance, the rule of philosopher king- all are possible through his scheme of education only.
Education was the key to Plato’s idea of a just and virtuous society. It was the key to his new social order. The Ideal State of Plato was not possible without a scheme of education that was devised as the prime mechanism to find out the natural aptitude in a person and to locate that person in the appropriate class. Plato wants to be just and logical. Thus, his method of dividing the people into classes is not based on mythological explanations such as caste system in India. He has tried to formulate an education system to find out the natural aptitude through his education system.
Because of the importance that Plato gave to education in realising the Ideal State, came Rousseau’s comment that Plato’s Republic was the finest treatise ever written on education. In fact, Rousseau’s Emile was written in response to the suggestions given in the Republic in regard to the education of men and women.
Importance of Education in the Ideal State
In Republic, Plato says that education is necessary for both moral reform and cultivating the human soul. He emphasised on the physical, mental as well as moral development of a person through education. After the philosopher rules the State, it was to be sustained by the education or through education. Education was to be controlled and regulated by the State.
Plato believes in the Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge. He believes that it is through knowledge that one can come to know about the Idea of Good. That’s why Plato said that a ruler must also be a philosopher because a philosopher ruler can have the knowledge of the Idea of Good and thus can best make the city-states similar to the Ideal State. Plato’s scheme of education emphasised on producing philosopher kings.
The philosopher ruler (the guardians) could become a philosopher only through education. He has to undergo a rigorous process of education, thus giving great importance to education.
Nature and Nurture
The Republic talks about the importance of nature and nurture in individuals. Plato accepted that men were born with some predetermined intelligence. However, at the same time, he said that through training one can acquire the skills. According to Plato, talent and training are both important to bring out what is best in an individual.
Interestingly, Plato said that children of the guardian class could become soldiers or artisans and children of the latter classes could also become guardians. This is also a significant point about his insistence on the importance of education.
In Republic, Plato outlined that up to 18 years of age there will be elementary education, followed by two years of compulsory military training and then higher education. The process of education will continue up to 50 years of age.
Plato recognised the importance of education to bring a desirable social change. He has not advocated any coercive or violent method for reorganising the society. He has not deprived the women from getting educated. He provides for state-sponsored education system.
The Different Stages of Plato’s Scheme of Education
Elementary Education
The purpose of elementary education is to train the body for the sake of the mind. This includes gymnastics and music.
Plato suggested censorships on literature and poetry. He censored from reading Homer and Hesiod. Only those works of Dorian and those who talks of courage and temperance were allowed.
Individuals are allowed to play music but not for profession.
This is followed by compulsory military training for two years. In this, individuals would be allowed to see battles but won’t take part in it. Those who qualified this will enter the realm of higher education.
Higher Education
The purpose of higher education is to train the mind itself, not through body. This includes studying arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and harmonics.
Arithmetic is useful in two ways- both for philosophical value and practical purposes. Geometry enables one to know the Idea of Good, the highest of the ideas. Both astronomy and harmonics have the same usefulness as arithmetic and geometry.
This study will continue for 10 rigorous years. Then at the age of 30, there will be another test. Those who qualify will continue their study and those who do not will become soldiers.
Those who qualify will study dialectics or metaphysics, logic and the first principle of Being. This would continue up to the age of 50. At 50, an individual is equipped to become a philosopher ruler.
Critical Assessment of Plato’s Theory of Education
Plato is criticised for bringing the education system under the complete control of the State. He does not allow any freedom. State has every control on what is to be taught.
He is also criticised for regimentation of the education system. The primary purpose of his education system is to create the suitable citizens for his ideal state. There is no freedom of discourse.
Plato made a significant point in his emphasis that both men and women should equally undergo the same education system. If qualified through various stages of education, even women could become a philosopher ruler. This was an aspect education played a positive role and how much Plato gave importance on education and its enabling aspect.
Plato’s emphasis on a state-controlled and state-regulated education system has still influence in many Western and Asian countries. Though many scholars criticise Plato because of his idea of state-controlled education system, many others embraced and adopted this idea as good.
The importance of education that Plato outlined in his Republic influenced many thinkers, Rousseau being one them. Education was important to realise Plato’s Ideal State. It was key to the Ideal State. Education was important to root out corruption and maintain stability. Indeed, Plato’s Republic makes education as its central theme. Seeing all this, Rousseau had to say that Plato’s Republic was the finest treatise ever written on education.
PLATO’S THEORY OF COMMUNISM
Plato’s education scheme is the primary means and communism supplementary means to create his ideal state.
Communism basically means common ownership.
Plato’s system of communism is his solution to tackle two prominent evils in the political system: corruption (economic appropriation for personal) and nepotism.
The guardians are to have small houses and simple food; they are to live as in a camp, dining together in companies; they are to have no private property beyond what is absolutely necessary. Gold and silver are to be forbidden. Though not rich, there is no reason why they should not be happy because the purpose of the city is the good of the whole, not the happiness of one class.
Both wealth and poverty are harmful, and in Plato’s ideal state neither will exist.
Plato applies this communism to the family as well. According to Plato, friends should have all things in common, including women and children.
Girls are to have exactly the same education as boys, learning music, gymnastics and the art of war along with the boys. Women are to have complete equality with men in all respects.
Marriage will be radically transformed. The best men and women has to be made husband and wife based on eugenic principles (the idea that it is possible to improve the human race by carefully selecting parents who will produce the strongest children). This was to produce the best offspring and improve the race. There is no freedom in marriage; it is to be controlled by the state. Plato viewed marriage in the narrow sense with the sole purpose of procreation (the production of offspring; reproduction).
All children will be taken away from their parents at birth and the state will take their responsibility. Great care will be taken that no parents shall know who their children are and no children shall know who their parents are.
Since no one knows who his parents are, he is to call every one ‘father’ whose age is such that he might be his father, and similarly as regards ‘mother, ‘brother’ and ‘sister’. This will ensure that a young man will not strike an old man because he might be striking his father.
The advantage sought is to minimise private possessive emotions and to remove obstacles to the domination of public spirit as well as acquiescence (the reluctant acceptance of something without protest) in the absence of private property.
Plato’s proposition of a thoroughgoing communism is for the guardian class and (probably the soldier class as well). These two classes have reason and courage as dominating qualities respectively. They are capable of keeping their appetite under control. We cannot expect producer class in whom appetite dominates to be part of this communism.
Moreover, since producer class is not going to be in power, there is no need for them to go for communism. They are not in such a position to do corruption.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PLATO’S POLITICAL THOUGHT
According to Aristotle, property is a time-tested institution. He acknowledges the problems of corruption associated with property but suggests that we can bring necessary changes in the institution rather than completely abolishing it.
Aristotle points towards the positive aspects of property. Property gives a sense of achievement and recognition. It motivates individuals to perform better. It provides scope for charity. Persons of property have stake in stability of the state. Aristotle suggests to reform the system rather than abolish it and opt for something which is untested and uncertain.
Aristotle also recognises the importance of family. It provides emotional stability. Plato’s system of communism is not moving forward but going back to barbaric ages. Human society in their process of evolution must have realised the problems associated with the absence of stable marriage and family. This is why have evolved the institution of private family.
***
RELEVANT ARTICLES ON PLATO
- Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Explained.
- Socratic Dictum ‘Virtue is Knowledge’. Explained.
- Plato as the First Feminist. Explained.
- Plato as the First Fascist. Explained.
- Plato as the Father of Totalitarianism. Explained.
- Karl Popper’s Critique of Plato’s Philosophy
- Plato as an Idealist Thinker. Explained.
- Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato. Explained.
- Plato’s Position in Political Philosophy
- Socrates’ Influence on Plato. Explained.
- Plato’s Second-Best State is Aristotle’s Ideal State
